The Unicist Japanese Park is a method that has been used since 1976 to evaluate the natural behavior when people are part of adaptive systems. It has been used to validate cultural archetypes, institutional cultures and personal behavior.

The purpose of this method is to find the natural organization that is used by people that demonstrates how they deal with their functionality to add value and to earn value.

It is based on building an emulation of a real adaptive system to integrate people in it and evaluate the functionality of their behavior. The emulation of the adaptive system needs to be defined knowing the operational and fundamental aspects that are included.

The first aspect that needs to be evaluated is how people focus their energy towards the generation of added value and measure how they assure the results. This allows defining the starting point of the value adding actions.

The second aspect to be assessed is how people deal with their efficacy, efficiency and quality assurance. This allows defining how people deal with their minimum strategies to be reliable.

This method provides reliable information of what happens naturally in an environment.

Diego Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Unicist

The Unicist Theory, developed by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute, changed the paradigms of the scientific approach to complexity. It made a logical approach to complex adaptive systems possible, making them reasonable, understandable and manageable. It integrated Complexity Sciences and Systemic Sciences in a unified field.

The Unicist Theory emulates the organization of nature by introducing unicist objects to drive business processes, institutional processes and social processes. You can access the complete document at http://www.unicist.org/repo

Overview

What is the Unicist Theory?

It is the theory that explains the nature of things.

What does the wording “nature of things” mean?

The nature of an entity is defined by its functionality in an environment, which has an underlying conceptual structure that emulates the intelligence that underlies nature.

What does the intelligence of nature mean?

It means that the functionality of every natural entity is driven by a purpose, an active and entropic principle that drives changes and an energy conservation principle that sustains the purpose.

What is the knowledge of the nature of things needed for?

To know what we are doing or talking about in order to better adapt to the environment, which implies influencing the environment while being influenced by it.

How reliable is this knowledge?

This knowledge is fully reliable because it deals with the conceptual functionality of things. It solves the empirical probabilistic approach of most systemic sciences.

When is the application of the Unicist Theory necessary?

It is necessary to diagnose, build strategies and design architectures in adaptive environments like businesses, institutions, social behavior and future research.

What happens if it is not used when dealing with complex adaptive environments?

When the nature of an entity is not considered, the capacity to adapt is lost and is replaced by dominating, opposing or submitting to the environment.

Which are the limits of its application?

The limits are given by the capacity of individuals to apprehend the concepts that underlie facts.

The Basic Breakthroughs that sustain the Unicist Theory

1) The discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature that regulates the evolution of living beings.

2) The discovery that Complex Adaptive Systems do not include variables but include objects that are interrelated by biunivocal multiple relationships.

3) The discovery of complementation and supplementation as the unique types of relationships in Nature.

4) The discovery of Human Ontointelligence that allows apprehending the concepts that underlie the nature and things.

Introduction

The objective of the development of the Unicist Theory was to find a structural solution to deal with complex adaptive systems considering their characteristics. Complex adaptive systems have, among other aspects, open boundaries and are integrated by the conjunction of their elements. In such systems, there is no possibility for the existence of observers.

The Unicist Theory, based on the discovery of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, allowed developing the four scientific pillars that provided the basics of the unicist logic based and objects driven technologies to manage human complex adaptive environments: Conceptual Economics, Conceptual Anthropology, Conceptual Psychology and Conceptual Management.

The Unicist Theory was originated by the need of finding responses to the question of why things happen in the social and economic world in order to influence evolution. It was triggered by the need of going beyond the empirical Know How that was used in the 70s to approach complex adaptive environments and the need to integrate it with a “Know Why”, that was inexistent.

The author developed an inductive approach to complex environments, which implied that he began at an operational level dealing with complex adaptive systems and entered deeper and deeper until the Unicist Theory was born. This theory was born when the structure of the concepts that underlie facts was discovered.

Then he began the application and research work to find the structure of concepts in the field of complex adaptive systems, beginning with biology and ending with social sciences and future research. This research work was possible due to the development of the unicist ontological research methodology that changed the paradigms of sciences to approach complexity.

The Theory itself

The research in complexity sciences to manage complex adaptive systems that led to the discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature and the Unicist Theory began in 1976. It was led by Peter Belohlavek and included the following discoveries and developments: Unicist Ontology, Unicist Logic, Unicist Conceptualization, Ontogenetic Maps and Unicist Objects.

The Unicist Theory was developed to manage the nature of complex adaptive entities.

On the one hand, to approach the nature of things an individual needs to be able to apprehend the essential patterns that underlie the operational patterns that are observable.

But, on the other hand, complex adaptive entities have open boundaries, which imply that the individual, who intends to influence the environment is part of the system, which makes traditional systemic science research methods fallacious.

In this context, the Unicist Ontological Research Methodology was developed to transform complex problems into manageable problems.

The Unicist Theory needs to be apprehended using the ontointelligence any individual has. It defines the individual’s capacity to apprehend the nature of things in adaptive environments.

It has to be considered that 3-5 year old children use their conceptual approach to reality to adapt to an environment that fully exceeds their rational comprehension by posing and endless questioning on the “WHY” of things.

Ontointelligence is necessary to manage reality as a unified field. This is necessary when dealing with complex adaptive systems. Ontointelligence is the deepest human intelligence that allows apprehending the nature that underlies observable facts. It is integrated by ethical intelligence, strategic intelligence and the logical type of thinking of individuals.

Complex problem solving requires having the concept that describes the nature of the solution, the actions that need to be implemented to expand the existing boundaries of the problem and the technical knowledge to develop the minimum strategy to produce results. Concepts can be apprehended when the fundamentals of the solution have been integrated.

It has to be considered that the intrinsic structures of fundamental knowledge and of technical knowledge are opposite to each other, but their effects are complementary to build a solution.

That is why only people who can deal with the integration of these oppositions can apprehend concepts. This is the case of the universal apparent dichotomy of yin and yang.

The Unicist Theory, based on the discovery of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, allowed developing the unicist ontological structure of fundamentals, which made fundamental analysis “resurrect from the ashes”.

Fundamental analysis is supposed to deal with the drivers of the nature of any entity but was transformed, probably influenced by technical analysis, into an analytic approach to standardized indicators.

The Unicist Theory provided the framework to research and discover the fundamentals of an entity and defined the structure of their integration.

The symbol of Yin and Yang, representing the TAO, necessarily emulates the structure of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature and is homologous with the Unicist Logic. If you are not aware of the scientific use of the TAO, we recommend reading the book “Tao of Physics” by Fritjof Capra.

Fundamentals are the elements that define the functionality of an entity.

They define the structure of its unicist ontology and allow building its ontogenetic map.

Fundamental analysis is the approach that defines the limits of the possibilities of the evolution of a given reality.

Fundamentals define the boundaries implicit in the functionality of a given reality.

Technical analysis deals with the cause-effect relation between “variables” that have been identified making a systemic compromise.

The discovery of the unicist ontology of evolution and the structure of concepts that regulate the evolution of living beings and their deeds established the structure for fundamental analysis integrating it with technical analysis in order to develop reliable knowledge.

Technical knowledge is popular because it is based on a dualistic logic, which is functional to the use of “binary neurons”. Fundamental knowledge requires accessing a double dialectical logic, which requires an action-reflection-action process. That is why fundamental knowledge is associated with wisdom.

The purpose of a knowledge acquisition process is to obtain reliable knowledge.

Reliable knowledge is necessary when individuals are willing to ensure a minimum strategy or are exposed to uncertain or risky environments.

In every day’s activity only operational knowledge is required.

This ontology is a final synthesis of the use of fundamental and technical analysis in the world of economic, social and business behavior.

Fundamentals describe the ontology of a given reality considered as a unified field. Technical analysis describes the cause-effect relations of a reality considered as a systemic object.

When working in a known context there is only need for feedback (operational analysis), an analytic approach and intuitive / rational decision making.

Technical Analysis and Fundamental Analysis are intrinsically opposite approaches for knowledge acquisition, but they are operational complements when reliable knowledge needs to be acquired. The natural pathway to knowledge acquisition begins by accessing the fundamentals, that define “what” is being done, and continues with the technical knowledge that defines “how” the operational solution will be achieved.

Technical analysis provides sufficient information and the necessary cause-effect groundings to make decisions.

When the context is uncertain the understanding of fundamentals is necessary.

Fundamentals are defined by the concepts that regulate the evolution of a fact.

Validation processes naturally degrade into fallacies when they do not include falsification processes.

Validation implies a non-destructive test and falsification is a destructive test measuring the accuracy and limits of a knowledge.

When a reliable knowledge is required to deal with minimum strategies, risks or uncertainty, the integration of technical and fundamental analysis is required.

The Business Intelligence Strategy

The driver of knowledge acquisition is the need for groundings in order to achieve a reliable knowledge to make decisions. Groundings are necessary when dealing with complexity, risk or uncertainty.

The minimum strategy is given by technical analysis to provide the necessary cause-effect knowledge. The maximal strategy to influence the environment is given by the knowledge of the fundamentals.

The catalyst to accelerate the building of reliable knowledge with a minimum strategy is conceptual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge establishes the secure limits of cause-effect knowledge.

Fundamental analysis and technical analysis provide the operational structure to achieve the objective of having reliable knowledge to make decisions.

When technical analysis is not integrated with fundamental analysis it naturally derives into analogical/hypothetical knowledge. When reliable knowledge is needed both approaches must be integrated.

Synthesis

Fundamental Analysis

Fundamental analysis is the approach that defines the limits of the possibilities of the evolution of a given reality. Fundamentals define the boundaries implicit in the functionality of that given reality.

Although adaptive systems and complex systems have open boundaries, they can only be managed when limits have been defined.

Defining limits based on the fundamentals of a given reality implies dealing with its nature and accepting its evolution laws. In the short or the long run the evolution of a given reality will drive towards its nature.

Fundamental analysis provides the tools to describe the nature of a reality in order to forecast its evolution. Evolution can be inhibited and catalyzed by human actions; but it cannot be changed.

Technical Analysis

Technical analysis deals with the cause-effect relation between “variables” that have been identified by making a systemic compromise.

In order to be able to manage a reality in everyday actions it is necessary to define it with systemic tools.

Systemic tools are based on cause-effect relations and therefore the result of transforming a complex reality into a simple system downgrades the possibilities of success. In technical analysis success becomes probabilistic.

Fundamental analysis has been downgraded during the last 30 years. As there were no objective tools to approach it, it was considered as the “subjective” aspects of technical analysis.

The discovery of the unicist ontology of evolution and the structure of the concept that regulate the evolution of living beings and their deeds, established the structure for fundamental analysis integrating it with technical analysis in order to develop reliable knowledge.

The conceptual approach to business requires that people need to know “why” something is happening. This is unnecessary at an operational level, but is a basic question when dealing with strategic approaches. The “know why” is driven by a logical approach to businesses that allows managing their concepts making them reasonable, understandable and provable.

When the boundaries of a business are being expanded, individuals need to apprehend the concept that is behind its operational aspects in order to influence a new environment. This implies apprehending the ontology (nature) of its concept and its dynamics.

On the one hand, the conceptual approach to business became possible based on the discovery of the structure of concepts, defined by a purpose, an active and entropic function and an energy conservation function, which allowed apprehending the nature of facts and actions (unicist ontology).*

On the other hand, the discovery that the concepts people have in mind work as behavioral objects that drive their behavior made this conceptual approach necessary to deal with strategic approaches.

The Origin of Conceptual Thinking

The endless “Why?” question posed by children (nearby 3 years old) is what allows establishing the neural network needed by a person to apprehend and manage concepts. This process starts when children begin to look for the origin of those things they are interested in.

This endless “why” questioning has three main benefits:

It sustains the development of the neural network that allows dealing with the origin of things and not only with the operational aspects.

It expands the language of the child driving her/him to deal with an implicit integrative, fuzzy and predicate logic.

It provides the “why” that allows children to approach their games, which develop their systemic thinking approach.

Conceptual diagnoses, conceptual design and conceptual management became possible using the unicist logical approach, which made “concepts” tangible and provided the structural functional approach to develop business diagnoses, strategies and architecture.

*Based on the research on Conceptualization developed by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute.

The discovery of ethical intelligence widened the possibilities of individuals to manage their own future. Ethical intelligence defines how people generate added value, influence the environment, manage time, build strategies and focus on reality. Ethical intelligence provides the structural logic to survive, earn value, add value, acquire and manage knowledge and deal with the nature of reality. It is the “mother” of all the intelligences. It defines the true intentions of individuals that are observable in the consequences of their actions.

The higher the level of ethics an individual wants to achieve, the higher the prices s/he has to pay, not only to achieve such level but also to maintain it.

A notorious aspect is that although being the less conscious intelligence, its evolution empowers the possibilities of the functional intelligences of individuals.

Even though there is a natural pathway for the evolution of ethical intelligence, it can be fostered or inhibited, depending on the prices individuals are willing to pay and the influence of the environment.

The natural pathway

When babies are born, they are naturally driven by the survival ethics, which defines their behavior. Babies would die if they did not follow the rules of survival ethics. Instinctive behavior is driven by this ethics.

Children are such when they are driven by value earning ethics, which allows them to grow appropriating what they need from the environment. This is also the definition of a childish behavior in adults.

Adolescence is the next stage which, being a transition, drives back to survivors ethics.

Adolescence ends when individuals begin to add value to the environment.

They do not need to go back to childhood; the stage of appropriating value as a goal has passed. The ideals adolescents have define their need to find a place in the world while they foster the expansion of the value adding ethics.

Adulthood begins when individuals decide to influence the environment and not only be influenced by it.

When it becomes necessary to have grounded knowledge, this need drives the individual towards the development of the foundation ethics.

When individuals assume the responsibility of the species, in a restricted or wide sense, the conceptual ethics begins to be necessary and is developed based on the universal added value they are willing to deliver.

After the “plateau” of life passed, individuals have two alternatives: they use lower levels of ethics in order to consume less energy or they achieve a level of wisdom that allows them to reduce the energy consumed by increasing the value they add.

Conclusion

Individuals have the possibility of increasing their ethical intelligence, which increases the functionality of all their functional intelligences.

The context of the research

The objective of the research on the drivers of human behavior, led by Peter Belohlavek was to find how human intelligence deals with its purpose which is allowing individuals to adapt to the environment. It requires experiencing the use of intelligence and confirming the results produced, after having developed the destructive and non-destructive tests, following the unicist methodology for complexity science research.

This process began with the discovery that human conscious actions are driven by the concept individuals have of what is being done. It demonstrated that individuals can only assume the responsibility for the results of what they are doing if they have the concept of it. It was based on considering human beings in their complexity and the application of the principles of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature.

Fallacies and paradoxical results are produced when individuals do not have the necessary knowledge or are driven by anti-intelligence.

This research implied experiencing for more than 35 years until the knowledge became fully reliable. The research allowed integrating existing knowledge on human intelligence with the discoveries that deal with conceptual intelligence and what was named the ontointelligence where ethical intelligence defines the final purpose of human actions.

The Unicist Ontology of Ethical Intelligence

Definition

Ethical intelligence is the intelligence that structures stable and dynamic rules that determine the action of the individual in his environment. It determines his capacity to add value, his influence on the environment and on others and his time management.

On the one hand, the rules are stable since they respond to a purpose that is defined by the level of ethics within which the individual acts.

On the other hand, the rules are dynamic, because despite the fact that the individual is at a certain level, he is capable of determining alternative strategies that satisfy the objective he is seeking within that level.

Ethics is defined as a set of rules that are functional to a situation and to a certain perception of an accepted moral,and are supported by a complementary ideology.

From an institutional point of view, five levels of ethics have been found that sustain the behavior of the individuals in institutions.

Ethics of survival

Ethics of the earned value

Ethics of added value

Ethics of foundations

Conceptual ethics

The Ethics of survival

The ethics of survival is the type of ethics prevailing within the marginal areas of a culture or the marginal cultures.

The functional structure of this type of ethics is based on the need to survive. People having this type of ethic permanently expect to avoid threats and use their strengths to compensate for their weaknesses.

For this reason people behaving according to this type of ethics are always concerned with avoiding costs or passing them onto others so as to earn as much value as possible thus securing their survival.

The individual that acts according to this type of ethics exercises influence upon others who are in the same situation, based on survivor-pacts. His time management is based on “the moment”, sustained by reactions based on intuition. He has a reactive tactical approach to reality.

S/he focuses on surviving and avoiding risks.

The ethics of the earned value

This type of ethics seeks to add the minimal value possible to generate an earned value and to minimize costs in order to assure the subsistence level.

The individual behaving on the basis of such ethics exercises influence upon the ones who behave in accordance with the ethics of survival and upon the ones that add less value than he does.

He is able to manage short-term problems. Short-term is the lapse between adding value and generating the corresponding earned value. He has a tactical active approach to reality.

S/he focuses on maximizing his benefit.

The ethics of added value

This is the type of ethic that maximizes the added value to the environment seeking to optimize the relationship between added value and cost.

The individual who acts on the basis of this type of ethics exercises influence upon the ones who manage the ethics of survival, the ethics of earned value and upon those that need to add more value than what they are adding.

Such individual manages the medium-term, which is the time to transform knowledge into added value. He develops medium-term strategies.

S/he focuses on the value he is adding.

The ethics of foundation

The ethics of foundation is used by individuals that consider that added value is secured by knowledge.

The goal of such ethics is that the foundations or groundings for work be reasonable, understandable and proven.

The individual behaving on the basis of such ethics bears influence on the ones who manage the ethics of survival, the ones using the ethics of the earned value, the ones using the ethics of added value and on those who have less knowledge than he does to act within their environment.

Such individual manages the long-term, which is the time span between discovering a concept and transforming it into useful knowledge. He develops long-term strategies.

S/he focuses on the security of the knowledge.

The conceptual ethics

This is the intelligence used to maximize the added value by using a high level of energy to materialize the need to give.

Individuals behaving according to this type of ethics exert influence on the entire environment because of their energy. They manage universal time that is the time of the cycles, with no time limitations.

They do not take into account their own existence. They develop strategies using the available, possible and expected forces.

S/he focuses on achieving the truth.

The case of the Stagnant Survivor’s Ethic

Stagnant Survivors are individuals with a complex driven behavior that sustains the parallel reality they live in and the responsibility avoidance they need to exert to be in a comfort zone.

The paradox is that their comfort zone is a conflict zone for those who surround them.

Complexes drive individuals towards the ethics of survivors and generate a stagnated status at this ethical level.

Stagnant survivors cannot manage time. As they are survivors who deeply consider that they cannot avoid being where they are, they need to blame others and avoid managing time. Time management requires a Complex free behavior.

The stagnated status is based on a fallacious utopia that justifies their actions and forces them to exert power while they appropriate the value they need to feel comfortable.

The justifications are built upon fallacies to sustain their actions, beliefs and needs.

These fallacies are built using the “anti-intelligence” and “anti-intuition”; the higher the IQ the more consistent the fallacies are. They are in fact built to justify immoral or amoral actions without feeling responsible for them.

Power is exerted in three ways depending on the role they adopt:

Savior: The power of Guilt

Pursuer: The power of Fear

Victim: The power of Pity

This power exertion provokes the reactions of the environment and endless conflicts.

The rotation of these roles avoids that stagnant survivors perceive that they provoke the conflicts and generates the perception of being a victim of the environment.

The appropriation of value by stagnant survivors is endless; because having no adapted place in the environment, their needs are endless.

All the materialistic, rational and emotional values they are given by others have no meaning for them and are disregarded.

Business Functionality of Ethical Intelligence

The discovery of ethical intelligence opened new possibilities to influence individuals’ evolution. Ethical intelligence in business defines the value adding possibilities, the influence on the environment, time management, strategic planning and focusing.

It has to be considered that in the business world different activities require different ethical approaches in order to be successful. For example:

A business is consistent when the individuals dealing with it have the ethics required by the activity.

When the ethics is inferior to what is needed, it necessarily inhibits growth installing a “business growth virus” in the organization.

If the ethics used by individuals is superior to what is needed, they install a “business profit virus” in the organization that increases costs and affects profitability.

Ethics is implicit in everyday actions, including language. Therefore, it can be defined, measured and fostered.

The rational knowledge of ethical intelligence has an enormous benefit for individuals in organizations in order to ensure consistency for growth and profitability.

Ethical intelligence establishes the game rules to run businesses. Different activities require different rules. Adapting to an environment requires respecting the rules of the reality one is dealing with.

For example:

– The use of the survivors’ ethical intelligence is functional to run small business and deal with conjunctural threats.

– The use of value earning ethical intelligence is functional to run distribution businesses and to increase profits.

– The use of added value ethical intelligence is functional to run industrial businesses and lead to market expansions.

– The use of the ethics of foundations is functional to run knowledge businesses and health businesses.

– The use of the conceptual ethical intelligence is functional to deal with research and complexity sciences.

There is a paradox in the human approach to ethics in business. Some people consider that “The higher the ethical level, the better the business”.

This is a fallacy. Running a business is like catching a train that is already running.

You have to run at the same speed to jump on it. If you are running slower than the train you won’t be able to catch it. If you are running faster than the train, you will not only miss the train but also waste your energy.

If you have a lower ethics than the one that is required by the business you will be downgrading it and losing market share.

If you have a higher ethics than what is required, you will lose market share and also money.

The systematic use of foundations is the natural catalyst for the development of ethical intelligence in the materialistic world.

The apparent paradox is that ethical intelligence is the deepest intelligence of the human mind, but at the same time it is the intelligence that evolves with the maturity of individuals and can be influenced.

Unicist Press Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. http://www.unicist.org

The Unicist Theory made adaptive systems manageable and gave an epistemological structure to complexity sciences. As it is known, the management of complexity has been an unsolved challenge for sciences. This challenge has been faced in 1976 by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute, which became a pioneering organization in the development of concrete solutions to manage the complex adaptive systems by developing a logical approach that uses the Unicist Theory.

A double dialectical logical approach to manage complex problems has been discovered. This approach is based on the discovery that complex systems have a triadic structure that emulates the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, represented by a purpose, an active principle and an energy conservation principle and their integration. The Unicist Theory that solved the approach to complexity includes the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature, the Unicist Ontology, the Unicist Logic, the Unicist Conceptualization, the Unicist Ontology of Evolution, the Ontogenetic Maps and the Unicist Objects.

There are fields that are generally accepted as being complex such as: life sciences, social sciences, anthropology, political sciences, economic sciences, behavioral sciences, medicine, psychology, education, businesses, ecology and meteorology.

The complexity of a system is intrinsic, which means that it does not depend on the perception of an individual. But in order to apprehend a complex system it is necessary that the person emulates the system in mind, which fully depends on the individual. This required defining what a complex system is.

Science dealt with complexity using multiple palliatives but without achieving consensus of what complex systems are. The main problem to manage complexity is that all the elements of the complex system are integrated by bi-univocal conjunctions without the possibility of the existence of disjunctions, that the boundaries of the objects that integrate the complex system are open and that the system is open in itself. The only measurable facts are the results that such system produces.

The most difficult task was the completion of the scientific evidences to confirm the functionality of the solutions, which demanded thousands of applications until they could be synthesized. The scientific evidences of the Unicist Theory were: the functionality of amino acids, the structure of atoms, the structure of biological entities, the nervous system, the similarity between natural and social objects, the fact that unicist concepts behave as stem cells and that thinking processes are homologous to the functionality of electricity.

The Unicist Theory was used to develop applications in Life Sciences, Future Research, Business, Education, Healthcare and Social and Human behavior. Now complex adaptive systems became manageable and complexity science received its epistemological structure. Palliatives to deal with complexity will continue to be used until people accept that complexity needs to be approached in its nature.

The research showed that the deepest intelligence humans use to apprehend the nature of a reality can be developed. Still, after more than 7 years from the final conclusions on Ontointelligence, the discovery unveils novelties on the tendency to encourage or discourage the development of this type of intelligence in different cultures. These results are being now disseminated.

The discovery of Ontointelligence was the result of the researches of Peter Belohlavek on intelligence that began in 1976. The operational ontointelligence was discovered in 1985. The research of the personal ethics as the access to conceptual thinking was finished in 1996. The final validation of ethics functionality as a type of intelligence occurred in 2006.

The unicist ontological research defined and described the essential and operational functionality of intelligence. According to the results, intelligence has reactive, active and ontointelligence functions.

The reactive functions of intelligence make intelligence objectively measurable. The active functions of intelligence are those where intelligence can be measured in potential and essential terms. Finally, the functions determined by ontointelligence are those described in this abstract.

The more essential an intelligence is, the more difficult it is to be measured and modified by the individual’s action. Thus, in societies and institutions, contexts stimulate or discourage the development of intelligence.

This unicist ontology-based research focused on the apparently unreasonable human behaviors and explained their functionality.

The following types of intelligence were discovered and researched:

Conceptual intelligence

Strategic style

Type of thought

Ethical intelligence

Human Intelligence Levels

Intelligence works showed the use of three layers to support human adaptive behavior. These three layers can be described as:

Reactive Intelligence, which has direct contact with the environment.

Active Intelligence, which sustains reactive intelligence when there is a need for a planning process.

Ontointelligence, which sustains active intelligence when the “apprehension” of the essence of a certain reality is required.

Synopsis of the conclusions

Reactive Intelligence

It determines the capacity to act in an adapted way when facing an unexpected situation.

It is characterized and measured by:

The emotional quotient (EQ)

The intelligence quotient (IQ)

The frustrations elaboration quotient (FQ)

Active Intelligence

It determines the capacity to plan actions in an adapted way.

It is characterized and measured by:

Conceptual intelligence: the introjective empathy and sympathetic capacity to influence.

Functional Intelligence: the type of intelligence of an individual (musical, logical- mathematical, etc.).

The goal of the unicist method to solve systemic problems is to establish a methodological framework to solve problems in which the complexity has been solved or does not exist.

The objective is to establish simple analytical steps that allow developing reliable conclusions of a problem where grounded cause-effect relationships are established.

This analytical method drives towards a “simplification” of the specific reality that is being researched. The deeper the analysis, the less reliable the applicability of particular solutions to the generic object.

A systemic problem solving methodology defines a pathway that begins with the definition of the possible goal and the description of reality that allows finding its functionality in order to use it to find a possible solution.

This requires minimizing the disintegration of reality into parts and simultaneously minimizing the unavoidable subjectivism that is generated by the uncertainty implicit in the problem solving process.

The Unicist Methodology is centrally focused on the analysis of facts and not on the opinions of the facts. Thus, it avoids a “double” interpretation of information, the generation of cross examinations and the consequent conflicts they produce.

The factual analysis as the core methodological aspect implies the existence of an integrative approach to reality, the consideration of adjacent facts and the need to find causative explanations that allow understanding the objective and subjective roots of the problems.

The concept of the USM

The Unicist Systemic Methodology is focused on the evaluation of facts independently from the explanations that are given on their causes.

As this methodology considers reality as a systemic problem, its concept is to find the cause-effect relationship of its variables. The objective of the analysis is to find the causes that generate the problem.

That is why the verbal information that is been collected is considered as an input for the analysis. The verbal information has a double functionality:

It describes the existing beliefs on reality, being their valid or fallacious.

It is a fact in itself, because of its relationship with the functional facts.

The USM begins by describing the facts or results that are being evaluated. To do so, it divides the unified field that is being scrutinized into the different facts that integrate it.

The purpose of intelligence is to sustain human adaptiveness. This discovery is a breakthrough in Behavioral Sciences that closed the circle of how humans adapt.

This research developed at The Unicist Research Institute implied experiencing for more than 35 years until the knowledge became fully reliable. The objective of this research was to find the roots of human intelligence in order to be able to understand, manage and predict human adaptive behavior.

It allowed integrating existing knowledge on human intelligence with the discoveries that deal with conceptual intelligence and what was named the ontointelligence. Ontointelligence allows apprehending the nature of reality by integrating human ethical intelligence, the type of logical thought and the strategic intelligence.

This process began with the discovery that human conscious actions are driven by the concept individuals have of what is being done. It demonstrated that individuals can only assume the results of what they are doing if they have the concept of it.It was based on considering human beings in their complexity and the application of the principles of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature.

Ontointelligence allows individuals to apprehend the nature of the environment they are dealing with and defines their adaptive behavior. Adaptiveness, as the purpose of human intelligence, is defined by the capacity of individuals to influence the environment in order to achieve an objective while being influenced by it.

We invite senior or retired executives, from all over the world, to participate in Think Tanks that work as business units.

This proposal is oriented towards those who are interested in entering a logical approach to business going beyond empiricism. We are interested in integrating people who exceeded operational problem solving and are interested in using their conceptual approach.

The discoveries made at The Unicist Research Institute allowed dealing with the roots of human behavior that allowed developing a logical approach to complex problems which is an extreme simplification to deal with the adaptive aspects of businesses.

We recommend accessing the evaluation room of the unicist logical approach where you can find the basic information on these projects. http://www.unicist.org/repo/